Introduction

Once you succumb to the trap of 'mediocrity,' you'll swiftly be engulfed by the relentless tide.

Recently, I encountered an intriguing perspective.

'The root cause of JiYue's downfall lies in significant operational challenges. However, the entire team, encompassing the product itself and the R&D system, remains intact. If traditional automakers grappling with the transition to electric vehicles were willing to acquire JiYue at a low price, it would indeed present a golden opportunity.'

Judging by the comments below, many netizens concur with this viewpoint, believing that JiYue can be regarded as a relatively high-quality asset and is far from being completely defeated. With proper rescue measures, there's still a chance for revival, potentially even empowering the 'new financial backer' significantly.

However, I disagree.

To substantiate my argument, consider the niche markets targeted by JiYue 01 and JiYue 07, combined with the comprehensive strengths of these two models. Selling them successfully is incredibly challenging. I'm not exaggerating; regardless of who takes the helm, the odds of success are slim.

Ultimately, end-consumers are confronted with an increasingly bewildering array of options. If you have evident shortcomings and lack a strong brand presence, standing out in the current environment will be challenging.

This is precisely the situation.

This naturally extends the discussion. The gradual collapse of the weak, like JiYue, also underscores a truth mentioned in numerous past articles: 'Wake up! China's auto market is headed towards a winner-takes-all scenario.'

More bluntly, unlike the era of traditional fuel vehicles, where various brands flourished, in this new race with drastically changed rules, victory will only belong to a select few.

And 'homogenization' is the greatest threat behind this trend.

'Cars are all similar; buy the one with the highest sales'

I believe many readers might initially find today's article title puzzling. The subtitle of this section offers the most concise explanation.

Rationally and objectively, while I've always been a steadfast electric vehicle enthusiast, I've also experienced the colorful era of traditional fuel vehicles.

Whether joint ventures, independent brands, large comprehensive automakers, or small but exquisite ones, they all possessed unique 'characteristics,' making it easy to establish distinct labels in consumers' minds.

However, everything has now drastically changed.

Especially this year, since the retail penetration rate of new energy vehicles first surpassed 50% in July, it has continuously outpaced traditional fuel vehicles for five consecutive months, becoming the mainstream. As a witness, I've noticed that the influx of new products into the market has become increasingly 'boring.'

The quotes are used because it's not that they're truly uninteresting but rather that they're becoming increasingly similar in certain aspects. They all offer long ranges, fast acceleration, smooth driving experiences, ample interior space, and even highly competitive pricing...

Currently, when evaluating the quality of a new energy vehicle, it seems that the only criterion left is the level of intelligence. Unfortunately, with giants like Huawei continuously exerting influence and sweeping the market, even this aspect can be swiftly compensated for with 'financial muscle.'

Regardless, if this trend persists, 'homogenization' will intensify.

Automakers that have surrendered their unique identities will gradually degrade into mere contract manufacturers. When potential customers decide which new car to buy, sales volume and brand prestige will become the predominant factors.

The resulting chain reaction is that leading automakers, already with a first-mover advantage, will further benefit under the Matthew Effect, widening the gap between them and their pursuers until the latter are 'exhausted.'

It's not an exaggeration to say that once you succumb to the trap of 'mediocrity,' you'll swiftly be engulfed by the relentless tide. Recently, various articles have been painting a picture of anxiety and bloodshed for China's auto market next year.

I admit, I'm one of them.

The fundamental reason is that, after experiencing this year's baptism, I can strongly feel the ambition and determination of a few frontrunners. Considering the overall market, it's challenging to generate many new increments to satisfy them all, and stock competition inevitably means many will have to exit the game.

JiYue's collapse won't be an isolated case. 'Homogenization' is often what giants are willing to see.

'It's true that the winner takes all, but there's more than one winner'

In fact, as mentioned at the beginning of this article, the end result of 'homogenization' is 'winner-takes-all.' To date, more than one automotive industry leader has made similar assessments.

For instance, as early as the 2023 performance briefing, Wang Chuanfu pointed out, 'It's now an era where the fast fish eats the slow fish, not the big fish eats the small fish. If automakers don't catch up in the next 3-5 years, they won't have a chance.'

Similarly, in the same year, Li Xiang also stated, 'By 2028, the penetration rate of new energy vehicles in China could reach 90%. If only four or five companies remain in the industry, BYD, Tesla, and Huawei will be among them. To stay in the game, we must sell more than 3 million vehicles a year.'

Moreover, Lei Jun, who shocked everyone, said in an interview this year, 'Once smart electric vehicles become consumer electronics, the industry's development will resemble that of consumer electronics. When the industry matures in 15-20 years, the top five global players will account for over 80% of the market share.'

It's undeniable that these statements, word for word, can be considered compelling evidence.

Of course, some hold opposing views, like Li Bin. In his opinion, 'The automotive industry has never been a winner-takes-all scenario; competition is fierce. Next year will enter the finals, but the finals are far from over.'

Regarding such an outlook, I can only partially agree. Next year, the gradual unveiling of a 'major battle' concerning the landscape will indeed be undisputed.

However, I'm more inclined to believe that as the gunfire gradually subsides, the final outcome will still be 'winner-takes-all.' As for the timeframe, it might take 3 years, perhaps 5 years, or even up to 10 years. Nevertheless, it won't completely mirror the mobile phone industry model, where only 5-6 companies remain.

The 'winners' in China's auto market will clearly be more numerous.

Borrowing a quote from Wang Xing of Meituan: 'The future landscape of the automotive industry will likely be 3+3+3+3, forming a competitive environment with 3 central enterprises, 3 local state-owned enterprises, 3 private enterprises, and 3 new forces coexisting.'

Regarding the numbers, there may be deviations, but the direction is correct. Oh, right, don't forget that although the market share of joint ventures in China is still shrinking rapidly, even a starving camel is bigger than a horse. Some players among them will never easily give up this largest 'pie' in the global auto market.

As I conclude this article, I want to say, 'In any industry, some participants are destined to be mere bystanders from the start. This is also true in China's increasingly homogenized auto market.'

Fortunately, while it's true that the winner takes all, there's more than one winner.

Faced with next year's 'major battle,' as the chill continues to spread, what each company truly competes on is who has more resources, a thicker foundation, and a stronger determination to survive and thrive amidst adversity.

'Endure, persevere, and outlast others until they fall.'